- (1.) THIS is an appeal against summary dismissal of the writ application by the learned Trial Judge dated 19th of July, 1991. The writ application was filed against the award dated 5. 9. 90 passed by the Assistant Registrar-Ill in dispute case No. 11-Dis. 1989-90 and challenging the validity of an award and the order dated 2nd July, 1991 passed by the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No. 40 of 1990 affirming the said award. The Learned Trial Judge has held that there were no irregularities, illegality and/or infirmity in the Award and judgment in the appeal. It was further observed that the writ court was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the statutory authorities and the writ court can only examine the decision making process as observed in this case reported in AIR 1989 SC. 997.
(2.) THE facts of this case in short was that the appellant considered the loan proposal and the term loan of Rs. 3. 50 lakhs was sanctioned for construction of factory building and for purchase of plant and machineries and a cash credit limit of Rs. 50,000/- was also sanctioned on certain terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the said loan were that the term loan should be repaid in 84 monthly installments after allowing gestation period of 6 months from the month of first disbursement and the appellant was to furnish a guarantee bond as also the appellant was to furnish a written undertaking to the effect that the appellant shall not claim and/or pray for enhancement of sanctioned limit and she will bear the balance of amount of project cost beyond sanction limit from her own sources. Accordingly the petitioner was granted loan to the tune of Rs. 50. 000/- for construction of a factory shed on 14. 5. 1985 and for plant and machinery a loan to the tune of Rs. 4. 40 lakhs was released in two phases by the appellant Bank. The said amount was paid on 24. 8. 87 and 27. 4. 88 respectively. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant was satisfied upon the project sanctioned, the term loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- out of which Rs. 80,000/- for construction of factory building and Rs. 2,70,000/- for purchase of plant and machineries from M/s. H. P. Singh and Co. , Calcutta as also a cash credit limit of Rs. 50,000/- towards working capital imposing certain terms and conditions by the Board. Subsequently to drawal of Rs. 80,000/- in May, 1987 the respondent No. 5 applied for change of quotation of M/s. H. P. Singh and Co. , Calcutta substituted by Messrs. Machine Tools Corporation which was allowed by the Management. A few months later it was detected that M/s. Machine Tool Corporation is a fictitious one, money receipts collected therefrom, an advance receipt of Rs. 50. 000/- and final bill of M/s. H. P. Singhs were forged. For this state of affairs an enquiry was held and the appellant decided to withdraw the term loan from the defendant and the appellant Bank called back the entire loan amount already disbursed to the respondent No. 5 by the letter dated 30. 11. 87 and for which the respondent No. 5 prayed for an unqualified appology for the act and conduct of Her husband Shri Gautam Das by a letter dated 18th December, 1987. After such an unqualified appology was tendered the respondent No. 5 applied for enhancement of term loan of rs. 3,50,000/- to Rs. 5,70,000/- which was considered by the appellant and accordingly the sum was enhanced to Rs. 5,70,000/- and the said money was paid in different phases.
(3.) IT was also the case of the appellant that respondent No. 5 failed and/or neglected to pay the loan to the appellant for the terms and conditions of the agreement already accepted and that because of negligence to pay instalment and also on the ground that the appellants conduct in the matter with regard to purchase of the plant and machineries and also acts of the fact that the respondent No. 5 had not shown trade cycle of her factory and due to disclosure of the fact of malafide intention of the plaintiffs husband and their bad performance the respondent No. 5 could not claim any further loan. It was further stated that for the purpose of obtaining subsidy from the Central government the respondent No. 5 prayed for a non-defaulter certificate from the appellant-Bank when the respondent No. 5 was a defaulter.;